The haze in Singapore causes problems for the capitalist economic system. The forest fires in Indonesia cause the haze in Singapore. The forest fires in Indonesia are caused by the greed inherent in the capitalist economic system. So the capitalist economic system is inherently self-defeating. Is this a valid or Invalid argument?

An argument is valid if it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The argument you've given doesn't mean that standard.

For one thing, the premises neither define nor mention the term "self-defeating." That already means that your argument relies on unstated premises and hence, as stated, isn't valid. But we can see the problem without resorting to technicalities.

What you argument shows, at best, is that capitalism sometimes has unintended bad consequences. To make your case, you'd need to show that capitalism, due to the "greed" (profit motive) it relies on, typically produces bad consequences, and that these bad consequences typically outweigh the good consequences. But the most your argument shows is that in one particular case, the bad consequences produced by the profit motive "cause problems for the capitalist system." There's no way that one example can establish the broad claim your conclusion makes.

My point isn't that you're wrong. For all I've said, capitalism may be self-defeating, though that's a pretty vague claim. But showing it would take an awful lot of evidence.

Read another response by Allen Stairs
Read another response about Economics